Obama - Why is the Economy Growing so Slowly?

So they arent related? Did 5 trillion of Obama (D)ebt just fly out of a monkey's butt? Get a clue....
.
..

 

Like I said, this is a conversation on spending... not on debt. Get with the program. It's obvious you aren't commenting on the subject because it makes Obama look like the biggest fiscal conservative out of all the President's.

 

Obama, contrary to the bolded text, in fact has spent MORE than any other president. You see, in your graph, Obama's increase in spending was a POSITIVE number, meaning that we spent MORE than before. In fact under Obama, we have the accumulation of ALL of the spending INCREASES on that chart. Nowhere on the chart do I see a time when spending actually decreased. But you want to complain because spending GROWTH during a recession isn't the most that it's ever been? So, when you lose your job, is the first thing you say "I'm gonna go buy a house. It's all just fake money anyway"?

 

The OP is absolutely right. We should spend fifty trillion dollars on stimulus and watch the economy grow forever.

 

Typical evil liberal! "(*)(*)(*)(*) you buddy! No one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about you, as long as those welfare moms keep getting their checks! Those are the people who really matter. You are just a nobody!"

 

Everyone in this thread understands the graph and what it means, with the exception of you. Not a single person here will agree with the claim that "Obama has spent less." Lower annual growth rate =/= a decrease in the level of spending.

What I'm sure most will agree with however, is that Bill Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush and presided over a better economy.

 

If you don't want people to suffer, then why are you trying to increase the price of the goods and services they rely on?

 

Apple has 99 billion it wants to invest in America if they can bring the money to America without having to pay a 30% surcharge on it. Give them a tax break so they will bring that money here and make jobs with it.

Obama anti-business bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is killing our economy.

Tell Obama to ok Keystones pipe to Canada so we can bring more cheap oil into america.
Tell Obama to ok more drilling in the gulf so we can have our own gas.
Tell Obama to forget the environmentalist and remove excessive regulations on shale oil drilling so we can become an oil supplier for the world. WE have more natural gas in America than anyone else does and we aren't taking advantage of that fact because of liberal anti-business bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Tell Obama to let them drill for oil in ANWR which will make Americans money to buy things with which will help prop up jobs.

It's all Obama and his liberal friends fault that we haven't grown faster than we currently are.

 

You reflect exactly what I said. "NO PAIN". Problem is that the pain is inevitable, so the question is, do you want intense pain but quick recovery, or long drawn out prolonged pain. Either way you get pain.

 

Under Reagan they had the accumulation of ALL spending increases from all the previous President's. Same with Bush.

Why is it now that Obama is the one that has to stop all this spending and take the blame for the economy suffering? Why were Reagan and Bush allowed to spend as much as they wanted and get credit for their thriving economies?

When Reagan was President he spent more than all the previous President's combined also. Why was he allowed to do it then?

 

How long do the purse strings need to stay open for your cart-drives-the-horse spending idea to work? Why didn't the economy surge between the 4th q of '09 and the 2nd q of '11?
We've been through this before:



For the record, there was a recession in 1920-21. It lasted for about 2 quarters look at government spending during that time. That recession was followed by what we call the "roaring 20s". Then look at how the government reacted to the 1929 recession. Why didn't the economy just recover right away, like it did in 1921?

 

It doesn't matter what the price of goods and services are if you don't have an income.

 

Same thing happened after WWII. You know how much money they spent for WWI and WWII?? Economies have some lag time to them, there isn't a perfect correlation between spending levels and economic growth.

 

So screw the people who work for a living and rely on their income...?

Okay, sounds good. Let's spend 100 trillion dollars. The economy will boom in perpetuity, right?

 

It also helps those of us with assets... you know houses, portfolios, etc. Controlled inflation helps a lot more people out than it hurts.

And you are taking this to the extreme. Just because I want to increase spending to increase productivity doesn't mean spending $100 trillion would produce the same result. It's a balancing act. Based on this logic, the economy would run best with $1 because every new $1 created hurts the economy, right?

 

How do you know that 100 trillion dollars is too much?

 

Why should I give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about you? You are basically saying that people who own assets and have children, etc are more important than anyone else in society and therefore should be the primary focus of policy, even if that focus damages the financial well being of those of us not interested in playing your (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up game of debt slavery for 30 years and raising bastard spawn in a society that makes it impossible to control their behavior in any meaningful way.

The Single White Working Class Male, like me, is the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing backbone of our society and you liberals just write us off as completely unimportant. Then you wonder why we won't vote for Obama.

Liberals say "If you are working class and vote Republican you are voting against your best interests." but then have the nerve to roll out a policy that hurts my best interests in the favor of the interests of everyone but me.

I'd rather hitch my wagon to the "evil" rich.

 

Except it isn't the prez who spends. It's congress.

 

I don't see any correlation at all. Even if there were you can't infer causation from correlation. That's why a-priori reasoning is so important.

 

The correlation is whatever you need it to be in order to prove your assertions. If the spending comes near the end of the recession, or even after it, then it was the promise of spending that worked. If the spending came years before the end of the recession, then it was the spending that worked but took time to move through economy.

What a joke Keynesians are.

 

Yes the conversation is about (D)eficit Spending......and how you somehow believe Massive (D)efict Spending is needed to revive the economy.........





Well Obama has had a Trillion dollar Stimulus every year of his presidency.........with disastrous results.......

Labor Force Participation Rate Since President Obama

.
.
.

 

We all agree that three decades of deficit spending, including the deficit spending under Obama generated by the Great Recession, have left the nation with too big a debt.

Obama has proposed a program of moderate tax increases and trimming spending. I agree that Obama's proposal doesn't go nearly far enough. We need to kill the Bush tax cuts completely, and even add a surcharge on millionaries, as well as holding the line on spending until it gets more in line with the 18-20% range it was in in the late 1990s.

So I agree, fair enough to criticize Obama.

But what is offered as an alternative? Romney proposes to cut incomes taxes by 20%. That will cut $200 billion in revenues per year, adding $2 trillion to the debt over 20 years. He also says he's going to increase military spending. He offers platitudes about cutting spending, but doesn't offer any specific areas where he'd cut spending, and agrees we cannot radically cut spending with a weak economy.

So maybe some of our conservative friends can rationally explain to us how Romney offers anything different than what Reagan and Bush offered, both of which saw huge increases in deficits and debt, and how that is going to be an improvement over Obama?

 

Another classic fail from akphidelt.

 

He doesn't. I doubt any actual conservatives believe he does. His supporters are the same neoconservatives who had no problem, or even supported, the expansion of government under Bush. Them and the OP (who has no coherent or rational explanation for the absurd things he posts.)

 

While I agree with the fact that Keynesians are a joke, at least they are clear in what they believe and why - they have some sort of theoretical underpinning, as flawed as it may be. The OP is not a Keynesian. He subscribes to Chartalism - a theory that more or less is based on national accounting identities and holds that deficit spending should be the norm. It's a theory that not even Keynesians take seriously.